white paper democritising expertise 2001

7/30/2019 White Paper Democritising Expertise 2001

1/30

White Paper on Governance

Work area 1

Broadening and enriching the public debate

on European matters

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP

DEMOCRATISING EXPERTISE

AND ESTABLISHING SCIENTIFIC

REFERENCE SYSTEMS

(Group 1b)

Pilot : R. GEROLD

Rapporteur : A. LIBERATORE

MAY 2001 (version finale du 2/7/01)


2/30

i

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

1. Experts are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain and

advise on such diverse issues as climate change, employment policy, BSE (mad cow disease),and genetically modified organisms. However, many recent cases have shown that expertise,

while being increasingly relied upon, is also increasingly contested.

2. Furthermore, in the interplay between different levels of governance in the European Union,expertise must be credible across a variety of national scientific and policy cultures. It should be

sufficiently robust to support policy proposals both at the Community level and in international

arenas. Enlargement presents additional opportunities and challenges: greater diversity and

knowledge, but also the need for adaptation and potential for broader societal questioning.

3. Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increased accountability

and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of expertise. General

provisions concerning public access of documents of Community institutions have been

adopted. The advisory scientific committees of the Commission were reformed in 1997, and

criteria of excellence, independence and transparency were consolidated. The European

Commission consults widely by making use of Green Papers on a variety of issues, and makes

increasing use of the Internet.

4. While building on such positive developments, more is needed to improve the interactionsbetween expertise, policy making and public debate. A number of important issues were

identified by the Working Group: the definitions of expertise; the meaning of democratisingin this context; the identification of needs and features of European reference systems;

uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; independence and integrity; the factors leadingto effectiveness; and the role of the media. In all of these issues, important lessons can be

drawn from past and ongoing experience.

5. Seven aims were agreed, corresponding to democratisation criteria: access and

transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning and foresight; independenceand integrity; plurality; and quality. To implement these aims, five action lines were

identified as promising avenues for further exploration - at this stage, no assessment has been

made of the resource implications.

6. In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its

departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions

and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common

understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for

eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g.

through the open method of co-ordination). The desired outcome is both better quality decision-

making, and restored trust in the use of expertise in European policy-making.

7. Some action lines complement activities foreseen to implement the European Research Area,and may form part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission

services working document Science, Society and Citizens in Europe.

8. The action lines are outlined below. A common feature throughout is the need for clearcommunication strategies to be integrated into the process:

i. A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level. An

inventory of those sources (committees, agencies, institutes, etc.) currently providing expert

advice to EU policy making will add transparency, and will provide a service to policy-makers


3/30

ii

and those parties, including the media, requiring rapid access to acknowledged expertise. The

inventory would initially be limited to EU bodies, but could be expanded to build upon

existing national and international databases and networks.

ii. Establishing guidelines for the selection and functioning of expertise in the policy-making

processes. These would implement the previously cited aims of access and transparency;accountability; effectiveness; early warning; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality.

More specific rules for individual officials and experts could be enshrined at a later stage incodes of conduct. This action line is expected to act also as a catalyst for the

implementation of the following three.

iii. More openness of expertise and greater opportunity for informed participation bysociety in policy-making. A number of measures should better connect experts, policy

makers and society at large, and make this process more transparent:

Attendance by the public and by stakeholders at meetings where expert advice is

developed and transmitted. The objective is to improve access to meetings to the

greatest extent possible. The favoured approach calls for all meetings generally to be open

with the possibility of restricting access for duly motivated and published reasons.

Publication of expert evidence and how it is used in reaching political decision. The

objective is to enhance accountability by providing the public and stakeholders with atrace of the path to a particular decision. Implementation rules should be aligned with the

recent institutional agreement on public access to documents.

Promotion of participatory procedures. The principles of access and accountability

demand public debate, knowledge-sharing and scrutiny of policy makers and experts at the

grass-roots level. Citizens juries, consensus conferences, participatory foresight are

among the mechanisms implemented on specific topics at local and national level.

Drawing on past experiences, steps could be taken to foster these throughout the EU

Member States and accession countries.

Establishment of intermediary platforms. The objective is to provide more permanent

and effective interfaces between experts, policy-makers and the public. This will involve

the identification of key bodies capable of synthesising expert material in formsunderstandable to the public and policy-makers, and/or helping experts better formulate

their advice in such a form.

iv. Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making. The objective is to

deliver knowledge for decision making that is socially robust. This implies a notion of

expertise that embraces diverse forms of knowledge (plurality). Expertise should be multi-

disciplinary, multi-sectoral and should include input from academic experts, stakeholders, and

civil society. Procedures must be established to review expertise beyond the traditional peer

community, including, for example, scrutiny by those possessing local or practical knowledge,

or those with an understanding of ethical aspects. This is sometimes referred to as extended

peer review.

v. Greater integration in risk governance processes. The objective is to have wider anddeeper integration of expertise during the full cycle of risk governance (identification,

assessment, evaluation, management and communication). This will enhance early warningand encompass plurality. The key objective is to ensure an effective interface and

networking between risk assessment and risk management at various levels, whilstrecognising the iterative nature of the process. An essential element is knowing the capacity in

which the actors participate, requiring clear procedures and objectives.


4/30

Table of Contents

Foreword 1

Part 1: Knowledge and Democratic Governance 2

1.1

1.2

Introduction

A brief view of the evolution of expert advice for regulatory policy in

The EU

2

3

Part 2: Selected Findings 5

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

Methodology and issues

Expertise and its organisation and mobilisation

Democratising expertise

European scientific reference systems

Management of uncertainty

Independence and integrity

Effectiveness

Mass media

5

6

7

8

8

9

9

9

Part 3: Learning from Experience 10

Part 4: Recommended Action Lines 14

4.1

4.2

Aims

Action lines

(i) A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at

EU level

(ii) European Guidelines for the selection and use of expertise for

policy-making

(iii) Ensuring access, improving participation and developing

intermediary platforms for more transparent and accountable

policy-making and informed public debate

(iv) Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making

(v) Integrated procedures for risk governance

14

17

17

18

19

22

23

Conclusion 25

Annex Members of the Working Group 26


5/30

1

Foreword

Policy d ecisions and informed public debate are more and more dependent upon

expert advice; this is due to rapidly advancing scientific knowledge as well as to the

complexity and interdependence of contemporary societies, economies and cultures.

The report of the working group "Democratising expertise and establishing scientificreference systems" addresses the question of how to develop and use expertise to

improve the quality of policy-making and at the same time secure the trust of the

public in European governance.

This report is the outcome of a collaborative effort by Commission officials acting in

a personal capacity. It is based on stimulating discussions within the group and withexternal experts to whom we should like to pay particular tribute.

The result of our work can only be the beginning of a process. We now must learn to

promote an open dialogue in order to make best use of the opportunities offered byscientific progress, whilst coping with its inherent risks. It is our hope that the

suggestions in this report will contribute to a broader debate and to concrete actions toenhance democratic governance in Europe.

Rainer Gerold


6/30

2

PART 1: KNOWLEDGE AND DEMOCRATIC

GOVERNANCE

1.1 Introduction

Experts are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain

and advise on issues as diverse as climate change, employment policy, BSE (madcow disease), genetically modified organisms and uranium depleted weapons. Theymay be frequently called upon to identify options, to tackle or prevent problems, or to

assess impacts. The power of expert knowledge (whether scientific or not) in definingand responding to these issues is increasingly visible for policy making and public

debate. The experts themselves are thus key actors of governance: either as

proactive agenda-setters in their own right (e.g. top scientists, or experts in

administrations) or, more often, as resources (e.g. external advisers) for actors in

government, business and civil society.

While being increasingly relied upon, however, expertise is also increasingly

contested. Official experts (within or appointed by governmental authorities),

industry experts (the private sector being an important source of expertise) and otherexperts, sometimes referred to as counter-experts (from non-governmental

organisations, or self-appointed experts), often contradict and challenge one another.

Traditional science is confronted with the ethical, environmental, health, economic

and social implications of its technological applications. Scientific expertise must

therefore interact and at times conflict with other types of expertise, while at the sametime being subject to the normal cut-and-thrust of academic debate within the

scientific disciplines themselves. In general, the lack of transparency in the wayexpertise is selected, used and diffused by governments is considered by many (e.g.

parliaments, media, civil society organisations) t o undermine the legitimacy of thepolicy process.

In short, we witness the paradox of expertise being a resource that is increasinglysought for policy making and for social choice, but one that is also increasingly

contested. Efforts to restore the credibility of expertise, and trust in it, are vitally

important. But they cannot be confined to educating the public: the very process of

developing and using expertise needs to be made more transparent and accountable,and sustained dialogue between experts, public and policy makers needs to be

pursued.

Whilst this situation is common to most contemporary societies, it involves additionalconsiderations in the context of the interplay between different levels of governance

in the European Union. Firstly, the credibility of expertise developed and used at theEuropean level needs to be established across a variety of national scientific and

policy cultures. It needs to be sufficiently robust to support policy or legislative

proposals both at the Community level and in international arenas where, for example,

environmental, health or trade rules are negotiated. Secondly, expertise has an

important role to play during the enlargement process, namely to support the

adaptation to existing legislation (the aquis communitaire) by the accession

countries. Thirdly, European debates on key issues using expertise can either

exacerbate national cleavages (a distrust of foreign expertise) , or, on the other hand,

may contribute to Europeanising the debate (the European or even global scale of

certain problems; the potential for common or co-ordinated responses, etc.). Fourthly,

the fragmentation of some scientific communities in Europe inevitably affects the way


7/30

3

expertise is provided for policy making. The European Framework Research

Programmes catalysed efforts to overcome such fragmentation and the European

Research Area launched in January 2000 aims to further improve co-ordination of

research efforts in Europe and to foster the dialogue between research, society and

policy-making. Finally, since the working of the many committees providing expert

advice to the European institutions are, for many, opaque and difficult to follow (aproblem also found, of course, at national and international levels), a debate on the

use of expertise contributes to the broader quest for a more accountable andtransparent EU policy process.

Against this background, the working group set out to:

clarify the notion of expertise and how it can be mobilised for public policy

and debate;

identify options and implications for democratising expertise;

recommend action lines aimed at both better quality policy-making and

restored trust in the use of expertise.

This report presents the findings of the group.

1.2 A brief view of the evolution of expert advice for regulatory

policy in the EU

The very process of European integration which has progressed from mainly

economic aspects, to gradually include more prominently social and institutional ones,has always involved an extensive use of expertise.

Expertise available at the EU level comes from many sources. These include:

in-house (EU institutions officials own knowledge in administrative, economic,

legal and technical matters; research undertaken by the EC Joint Research Centreextended through networks involving a broad range of organisations);

scientific advisory committees;

European Agencies;

Member States (who appoint experts to the Commissions comitologycommittees and Councils working groups);

stakeholders (with some prominence of the more resourceful ones, such asindustry);

expertise developed through the research policy of the EC (which is a unique caseof trans-national research policy, with distinct features as compared to

international research co-operation programmes);

ad hoc expert groups;

consultancy studies.

Regulatory policy-making in the European Community has been an important feature

of European integration. It is strongly based on expertise for the development and

implementation of strategies and measures across a broad spectrum of topics (e.g.vehicles emissions, use of pesticides, safety at work), and involves the handling of

complex technical information at different levels. For example, Directives settingtargets but leaving Member States the choice of implementation mechanisms involve

issues of comparability, interoperability and - when appropriate - harmonisation ofmeasurement methods and monitoring data. Such technical information is not just the


8/30

4

basis for technical decisions: it can also shape options linked to distributive issues

(costs of options, access to resources), health, and the environment. The Directive on

Large Combustion Plants provides a useful illustration. Its adoption involved the

handing of technical issues concerning the comparability of methods to measure

emissions, as well as the calculation of costs of abatement options across countries.

This led to a burden sharing agreement where different contributions by the MemberStates were agreed upon to reach a common overall emission reduction. In addition to

these intra-European dynamics, the Community has succeeded in several cases topromote European regulatory standards at the international level.

While such expert-based regulatory policy of the European Union can be seen as a

guarantee of efficiency, it is often perceived as technocratic and in need of review.This may be because many issues once dealt with at national level are now dealt at the

European level, and have as a result become more visible. For example, the trans-boundary nature of BSE (mad cow disease) requires decisions at European as well

as national levels. The criticism of technocracy can also be seen as a part of the

broader quest for more accountable institutions at all levels, and for more transparent

and participatory procedures.

Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increasedaccountability and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of

expertise. General provisions on transparency called for by the Maastricht and

Amsterdam Treaties have been adopted concerning public access of documents of

the Council of Ministers (Decision 93/731/EC), the Commission (Decision

94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom) and the European Parliament (Decision 97/632/EC,

ECSC, Euratom). A new legal instrument on public access to EU documents intended to expand and systematise earlier provisions was approved by the

European Parliament on 3 May 2001.

With regard to expert advice, the advisory scientific committees1

of the Commissionwere reformed in 1997 and criteria of excellence, independence (e.g. members and ad-

hoc experts are required to make declarations of interests which may be consideredprejudicial to their independence), and transparency (namely in the recruitment of

experts) were consolidated. The Commission has also used the Internet for publishingthe opinions of some of its scientific advisory committees in the interest of

transparency. Indeed, steps have been taken to make more transparent the workings of

the many advisory groups currently contributing to the Commissions policy making.

For example, in the domain of research policy itself, the implementation of the Fifth

Framework RTD Programme is guided by Expert Advisory Groups composed of

scientists, stakeholders and users. Both the composition of the groups and the advice

they deliver are made publicly available on the Internet.

In response to criticisms regarding the opaqueness and lack of accountability ofcomitology (the complex system of advisory, management/implementing and

regulatory committees composed of experts nominated by Member States and

involved in the Commissions execution of Community activities), a newComitology Decision was adopted in 1999 (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999). This provides for

the involvement of the European Parliament for those acts subject to co-decision. A

1Providing advice in matters of health and consumer protection.


9/30

5

subsequent Decision gives the Parliament additional rights such as receiving agendas,

list of members and minutes of committees 2.

The European Commission also consults widely by making use of Green Papers on

issues ranging from PVCs to innovation policy. While they have been used for many

years, Green Papers are now an important instrument in responding to the Protocol tothe Amsterdam Treaty on the Application of the Principle of Subsidiarity and

Proportionality. This calls upon the Commission to consult widely before proposinglegislation and, wherever appropriate, to publish consultation documents.

The Working Group acknowledged recent positive developments such as those

described above. However, it recognised that much more is needed to improve theinteractions between expertise, policy making and public debate. This entailed a

deeper consideration of the lessons to be learned from problematic cases, and ananalysis of the basic questions: what is expertise and how does it work? What does it

mean to democratise expertise and how can this be achieved? Could the

establishment of European scientific reference systems help early identification and

effective response to health, environmental and other problems? These and other

related questions and options were formulated and identified through intense internal

work and external consultations.

PART 2: SELECTED FINDINGS

2.1 Methodology and Issues

The working group drew upon the Commissions own knowledge and experiences,

contributions from external consultations, and relevant research, studies and other

published documentation.3

The internal work included elaborating short, illustrative

examples (case studies) selected against common criteria and drafted on the basis of

common guidelines. This was aimed at identifying critical points and drawing

lessons. The external consultations gathered insights from a variety of expertise andareas of knowledge. Taking account of time and other constraints, different forms of

consultations were undertaken to allow for constructive, pluralistic exchanges ofviews and experiences. These consisted of meetings with individuals or small groups

of experts, two workshops with over 60 external participants, and an open e-questionnaire on the Web involving over 200 responses.

A number of important issues and options were identified by the Working Group on

the basis of this internal debate and external consultations. Three main issues are: the

definitions of expertise, its organisation and its use; the meaning of democratising

expertise (including possible misunderstandings) and options for achieving it; and the

identification of needs and features of European reference systems. Other important

issues include the management of uncertainty (including interpretation and use of thePrecautionary Principle); the notions of independence and integrity; the factors

leading to effectiveness; and the role of the media.

2 The issues of transparency and accountability of the EC Committee System is also addressed by the

Working Group on Evaluation.3

A summary of these consultations and documentation will be available on an accompanying CD-

ROM and the governance website.


10/30

6

2.2 Expertise and its organisation and mobilisation

Expertise covers a variety of forms of specialised knowledge possessed by a selected

part of the population the experts. Expertise may be used to advise governments

or the private sector and/or to contribute to public debate. Experts may be called upon

by those seeking knowledge, or they may act on their own initiative. Expertise is

increasingly understood in a very broad sense, encompassing both the knowledge

arising from natural and social science and that arising from specialised practices(administration, farming etc.).

Science remains a key source of expertise, but it is no longer the ultimate depositoryof trusted knowledge. This is partly due to the linking of science and technology with

the economy, society and policy (including ethical considerations). The relationsbetween science-based expertise and other types of knowledge are far from easy. It is

already difficult to make the different areas of science (including social sciences)interact; to make them interact with other forms of knowledge (e.g. practical

knowledge) requires additional efforts. The compartmentalisation of knowledge

makes it difficult to address issues that cut across different policy areas, disciplines,

natural and social processes. This is an important obstacle to the mobilisation of

expertise. In addition, some might find it difficult to discern when expertise providedby stakeholders is an input to the broadening and cross-checking of the knowledge

base, and when this is part of claiming a stake. Others could find this distinction

irrelevant as all providers of expertise could be regarded as having stakes, and the

issue is rather to make them explicit rather than assuming the neutrality of some

experts as compared to the partiality of others (see also the point below on

independence and integrity).

Expertise may be used to assist in a variety of functions, ranging from the provision of

early warning, to target-setting, policy implementation and evaluation. Diverse t ypesof expertise can be needed depending on the functions, stages and time horizon of

policy making and public debate. Specific examples can be found in relation to policyevaluation (e.g. regulatory impact assessment or business impact assessment), the

working of specialised agencies (e.g. concerning risk assessment and other tasks), therole ofnetworks (e.g. in fostering knowledge development and use) 4.

Problems arise with regard to the credibility and legitimacy of expertise and its role in

public policy and debate when it seems to be used mainly as a legitimating device

for decisions already made by politicians. The same applies when experts seem to

replace political deliberation with technocratic decisions apparently inaccessible and

unaccountable to public scrutiny. Furthermore, the provision of expert advice is not a

well recognised role in most European countries. For example, there are disincentives

for scientists and researchers to provide expertise since this may jeopardise

publication records and recognition within the research system. This may undulyrestrict the pool of available expertise. In addition, expertise may be organised in

very different forms. For example, public authorities tend to establish clear

(sometimes rigid) procedures for expert advice, while private actors may rely more

often on ad hoc advice. Finally, issues of responsibility - including legal liability -

may deter experts from providing advice if such responsibility is not clearly defined

or is misunderstood. For example, it is obvious that misconduct (e.g. providingevidence known to be false) should be subject to sanctions, but the definition of

4See Working Groups on evaluation, agencies, networks.


11/30

7

boundaries between political responsibility in making a decision and the responsibility

of experts whose advice is used in decision making needs further clarification.

2.3 Democratising expertise

Democratising expertise is not about majority voting in science, but rather about

guaranteeing due process in the way expertise is developed, used and

communicated. This implies principles such as accessibility, accountability, andpluralism. In contrast, majoritarianism is generally incompatible with thedevelopment and use of expertise. Majority groups within science and

administrations are normally responsible for organising the mobilisation of expertise;this is not a problem if clear procedures are set out. However an y choice of preferred

expertise based on p olitical majorities is at odds with quality and the need forpluralistic debate and testing. In particular, if majoritarianism leads to the neglect of

minority views, this can prove detrimental to early identification of problems, theprevention of crises or the identification of suitable response options.

Democratising expertise should not be understood as sacrificing quality, but as

extending the traditional procedures for assessing quality. This refers not only to

scientific excellence but also to the ability to respond to policy and social concerns.In this regard, democratising expertise goes hand-in-hand with expertising

democracy, or the provision of expertise to democratic institutions. Faced with

complex problems often involving technical and scientific aspects - democratic

institutions (Parliaments as well as Governments) and citizens need to have access to

relevant and usable knowledge of good quality. This should include the explicit

acknowledgement of uncertainty. Specific efforts are required to translate

information in suitable forms (e.g. synthesis documents) for democratic institutions

and the wider public while trying to avoid information overload. It is considered

that a key element of the democratisation of expertise would be to reinforce thefunctioning of democratic institutions in this way.

The democratisation of expertise entails some potential trade-offs. One is the

balance between legitimacy and efficiency. Consultation and democratic scrutinyrequire time, and this might conflict with the need for quick decisions. On the other

hand, some experience shows that quick decisions reached without scrutiny andconsultation might prove socially unacceptable and thus inefficient. Another trade-off

could be between simplification and participation. Simplification of legislation is

regarded as desirable (especially with regard to transparency), but the participation of

experts with different viewpoints can involve complex policy outcomes to

compromise between diverse views. Whilst this should be borne in mind,

experience shows that early involvement of target groups and their expertise can

optimise the choice of action and, again, reduce problems of implementation.

Another important aspect is the preparedness to be influenced by the act of

participation. If participants only attend meetings to present their views rather than

being open to other views, important information is lost and plurality does not lead to

learning b ut to mere positioning. These points relate to the broader debate on

improving civil society participation to the policy process and the enhanced role of

organisations intermediating with civil society such as the Economic and SocialCommittee

5.

5See Working Group on participatory rights.


12/30

8

2.4 European scientific reference systems

Recent and less-recent crises (e.g. BSE and Chernobyl respectively) have demanded

co-ordinated, prompt and effective policy responses at the European level. They point

to the desirability of organising expertise to assist such responses, and to enhance

early warning. In addition, economic globalisation and the important role of

international organisations and agreements suggest the need to improve the European

capacity to interact with international scientific references (e.g. Codex Alimentariusof FAO and WHO, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement SPS- of WTO, theBiosafety Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention, the International Panel on Climate

Change). This is especially the case in areas of exclusive Community competence,such as agriculture and trade, but is also very important for areas of mixed

competence such as environment protection. This aspect can be regarded as acomponent of the role of Europe in the international context

6.

The specific functions of reference systems include the continuous collection,

comparison, validation and storage of data, provision of foresight analysis,

contribution to early alert and crisis management, communication between scientific

laboratories, other providers of relevant knowledge and users (policy makers and

others). The specific features of such systems are less easy to define. An informalinter-service working group was set up to examine scientific and technical reference

for policy implementation. This group, chaired by DG Research and the JRC, noted

the existence of mechanisms of networking between EC structures and Member States

organisations, while wider consultation fora appear less developed. A network rather

than centralised approach was also suggested during the consultation of the Working

Group. This implies flexible co-ordination between all institutions developing and

using expertise for EU policy-making (agencies, research centres, Commission

services and committees, etc.). The relation with democratising expertise will be an

important element when examining the possible features of European referencesystems. This should entail a comparison of good/best experiences in addressing

issues of access, accountability, transparency, plurality etc.

Some other issues connected with the above three main issues were also addressedand are briefly examined below.

2.5 Management of uncertainty

Uncertainty is a key issue in policy making and public debate involving expertise. It

is vital to make uncertainty explicit in the knowledge base, and to act accordingly.

This point is highlighted in scientific literature and in policy circles (e.g. Canadian7

and UK Guidelines on scientific advice8). It was also stressed during the work of the

Working Group. The Precautionary Principle is a general principle of law used to

address decision making under conditions of scientific uncertainty. In itsCommunication on the Precautionary Principle of February 2000 (COM (2000) 1), the

Commission set out the way in which this principle should guide decisions when

information is uncertain, insufficient or inconclusive and where there are indications

that possible risks, linked for example to the environment or public health, may be

6 See Working Group on global governance.7 A framework for science and technology advice: principles and guidelines for the effective use of

science and technology advice in government decision making, Industry Canada, 2000.8

Guidelines 2000: Scientific Advice and Policy Making, Office of Science and Technology, July

2000.


13/30

9

dangerous and inconsistent with the chosen level of protection. The Presidency

Conclusions of the Nice Summit of December 2000 endorsed the broad thrust of the

Commissions Communication, and called for specific guidelines for the application

of the principle. Mention is made, among other aspects, of transparency in risk

assessment, reporting on minority opinions, early involvement of civil society and

examination of social, economic, environmental costs.

2.6 Independence and integrity

These notions are sometimes controversial and need clarification. Key advisory

committees are expected to provide independent advice, and members are requiredto act independently of all external influence. However, it has been argued that the

best experts in a particular field might have some economic, political or personalinterests that could affect or be perceived to affect their independence. Such a

situation need not prevent the use of such expertise, provided that measures can beestablished to deal with possible conflicts of interest. For example, in order to give

external confidence with regard to integrity, experts should be required to make and

regularly update verifiable declarations of interest. In addition, publicity and

procedures to guarantee plurality of expertise can be regarded as important safeguards

against vested interest or misconduct.

2.7 Effectiveness

Factors that enhance effectiveness in the mobilisation and use of expertise for policy

making and public debate differ depending on the functions and tasks to be

performed, and the time horizon concerned. For example, effectiveness in early

warning involves the capacity to seize the right window of attention in issuing the

warning: too early, and people are not ready to listen; a warning issued without

pointing to specific risk to be addressed by policy makers may pass unnoticed.

Effectiveness in target setting may require the ability to find a sound and acceptable

balance between a number of factors (e.g. sources of greenhouse gas emissions, theirrelative contributions to climate change, their distributions between countries andeconomic sectors, the costs of emissions reductions, etc.).

2.8 Mass media

Last but not least, the role of the mass media is of great importance in connectingexpertise, policy making and public debate. The media can be seen as a vehicle of

communication between different views, knowledge sources and interests, as well as

providers of expertise (e.g. investigative journalism can provide information which is

very hard to disclose), and as agenda setters and shapers of public perceptions. It

has been pointed out in many instances that the mass media tend to emphasise crises

and problems rather than good news; in some cases the spreading of inaccurate orwrong information can exacerbate crises. However the media do not normally

invent crises in spite of charges sometimes addressed in this regard (e.g. following

the Chernobyl accident). When taking into account that freedom of information is a

basic guarantee of pluralism and democratic debate, it becomes obvious that improved

communication between mass media, experts and policy makers is very important in

democratising expertise in the context of democratic governance.


14/30

10

PART 3: LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE

To illustrate the emergence and importance of some of these issues in the

Commissions experience, a number of examples were examined. These were BSE

(mad cow disease), GMOs (genetically modified organisms), PVC (a chemical

based on chlorine), employment guidelines, standardisation, and medical products. A

comparison of EU and USA experience with regard to GMOs and air quality providedadditional inputs

9. The Table that follows synthesises the main insights from the

selected examples examined by the Working Group.

9A comparison of institutional changes to improve the credibility of expert advice for regulatorydecision-making in the US and EU, A. Koenig and S. Jasanoff, study for the European Commission

2001.


15/30

Definitions of theissue

Provision and use ofexpertise

Options formulatedto democratise

expertise

European scientificreference systems

BSE

(madcow)

Started as animal

disease (emphasis oneradication at

minimum economicimpact) then due to

link with vCJD-consumer protection

(aimed at minimisingrisk for consumers)

First in-house, then expert

committee no formalprocedures for

independence andtransparency. After 1996

reform of EC scientificcommittee (SSC),

separation between riskassessment and risk

management, proposal for

European Food Authority

Reinforced

principles ofexcellence,

independencetransparency in SSC;

publication of SSCopinion on Internet;

extension ofscientific community

through a European

research programme

Proposal for a

European FoodAuthority would

establish a referencesystem that include

BSE aspects, withfocus on networking.

Cooperation betweenJoint Research Centre

and DG Health and

Cons.Prot. ongoing.

N

ia

mr

ps

ri

o

v

GMOs

(gen

eticallymodifiedorganisms)

Use of GMOs in the

agricultural and food

sectors raise public

concerns in relation topossible risks for

health and theenvironment.

Directive 90/220/EEC(revised in 2001) on

deliberate release ofGMOs into the

environment

introduced pre-

marketing approvaland safety

requirement.

Approvals are

contentious.

Member States provide

scientific advice in early

stage of product approval.

EC scientific committeesare consulted in case of

disagreement; revisedDirective makes

consultation of suchcommittees mandatory.

Regulators criticised fornot taking sufficient

account of wider range of

expertise

Advice of scientific

committees is

available on Internet.

Conferences andworkshops. Revised

Directive introducemandatory

consultation of thepublic. An

independentadvisory group on

bioethics established

by the Commission;

opinions published.

European Network of

GMO Laboratories

(EC Joint Research

Centre and MemberStates). Commission

proposal to makefuture European Food

Authority referencefor advice on

authorisation of GMOproducts. International

references: Biosafety

Protocol, OECD,

Codex Alimentarius.

N

r

d

pb

ea

fa

po

u

a

p


16/30

Employmentstrategy

New chapter on

employment in

Amsterdam Treaty:

design and

implementation ofemployment policies

rests at national level

but requires co-

ordination at

European level.

Seeking of integration

of real economy in

economic integration.

Employment guidelines

are drafted by the

Commission, in

cooperation with experts

from nationaladministrations and

external experts (to define

operational concepts,

statistics and indicators).

Social partners are also a

main source of expertise.

Since the Feira

Council of 2000,

social partners are

invited to provide

expertise foridentification of

good practices,

develop national

action plans, etc. in

relation to the

adaptability pillar.

Intense networking

for development and

monitoring of

guidelines- between

European Commission(including Eurostat),

Member States, other

institutions and social

partners.

E

s

e

i

ts

s

g

o

O

E

i

PVC

(achemicalbasedonchlorine)

Potential negative

effects on health andenvironment, mainly

related to wasteincineration.

Controversy over twoissues: dioxin and

incineration, risk fromcadmium and lead.

National measures on

PVC have

consequences for

internal market.

Commissions Green

Paper on PVC based on 5main studies b y

consultants chosen throughtendering. Studies took

account of divergentviews. Studies and Green

Paper submitted to publicscrutiny (e.g. through

Internet consultation and

public hearing).

Green paper made

available in all EUlanguages and

presented toEuropean Parliam.;

Internet consultationresulted in 32,000

replies, most (95%)from industry; public

hearing with 250

seats (mainly

industry and NGOs).

European risk

assessment procedures(e.g. for cadmium)

with national expertsas rapporteurs upon

initiative ofCommission and

Member States.European Chemicals

Bureau at Joint

Research Centre also

important.

R

(c

in

Tc

Wt

T

c

e

r

(


17/30

Standardisation

Harmonised standards

support the New

Approach legislation

by which the

European legislatorintends to overcome

still existing barriers

to the free movement

of goods within the

internal market.

Three European standards

organisations: CEN,

CENELEC (decentralised

structures) and ETSI

(based on directparticipation of its

members companies, etc)

mandated by the

Commission to draw up

the harmonised standards.

These bodies are largely

dependent on operator

expertise, but otherinterested parties may

participate in the process.

Commission urged

CEN and CENELEC

to further open their

structures to

interested parties,suggested national

public enquiries,

supports

stakeholders

involvement (e.g.

financial support to

interest groups with

less resources)

The cooperation of the

three standard

organisation and the

European Commission

can be seen as aEuropean reference

system on

standardisation.

Relations with

international

references (ISO).

S

w

E

c

pm

e

i

p

e

p

Medicalproducts

Creation of European

marketingauthorisation system

for pharmaceuticals,with EMEA

(European medicineEvaluation Agency) as

focal point, as

response to tensions

between completion

of internal market,

resistance by Member

States, and healthpolicy.

EMEAs scientific

committees (Comm. ForProprietary Medical

Products and Comm. forVeterinary Medical

products) are supported bya network of some 2400

experts suggested by

national authorities.

EMEA has public

access obligations:European Public

Assessment Reportspublished for each

authorised medicalproduct after

decision is taken; list

of experts and

declaration of

interest for experts,

staff, committees;

use of Internet;dialogue with

interest groups

representing

patients, consumers,

health professionals,

industry; etc.

EMEA can be seen as

focal point of aEuropean reference

system of medicalproducts.

Relations withinternational

references (e.g.

WHO), dialogue with

third countries

regulatory agencies

(e.g. International

Conference onHarmonisation with

USA and Japan).

S

em

si

Tg

n

w

o

p

bT

n

c

t

o

o


18/30

14

The examples, which range from the highly controversial to the more routine, point

to a number of important issues. These include the importance of problem d efinition

in mobilising the relevant expertise (including practical expertise); the merits and

problems (e.g. unbalanced responses) related to public consultation; and the complex

relations between risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. The

examples also highlight some ongoing challenges and lessons to be learned: thechanges in procedures used to select and mobilise experts in scientific advisory

committees; the explicit consultation of experts with practical knowledge (e.g.operators, social partners) as well as the wider public; the handling of ethical aspects;

the networking of national and European reference systems, and their relations withinternational structures.

When comparing European and USA experiences and regulatory approaches,

different transatlantic trends emerge. In Europe there is a trend to open up thetechnocratic processes, formerly regarded as being driven by an expert elite, to

increasing transparency and broader participation in decision making. In the USA, on

the other hand, a trend is emerging to carve out increasing space for expert authority

in a rather aggressive adversarial context with a strong role for the judiciary. In

addition, the linking of risk assessment and risk management was endorsed by the US

National Research Council in 1996 (modifying earlier guidance on strict separationissued in 1983) and is being debated, while the separation of these functions has been

advocated in recent Community decisions (e.g. establishing specialised agencies).

Some lessons can be drawn from these comparisons. Adversarial approaches

(including resort to courts) can enhance the social robustness and acceptability of

expert-based decision; however it should be taken into account that formal

mechanisms of participation do not result in democratic decisions if participation isunbalanced. The technocratic approach may be more efficient in terms of time,

and may sometimes protect expertise from vested interest. However, it runs intoproblems of legitimacy and acceptability, and may jeopardise quality due to

restrictions in the pool of expertise taken into account. Finally, the relationsbetween different elements of risk governance need careful examination.

PART 4: RECOMMENDED ACTION LINES

4.1 Aims

The internal work and the consultation highlighted the fact that making expertise

more accessible is important, but that this has to go hand-in-hand with other more

fundamental changes. Among these, there was a clear call for more accountability and

procedures to provide a trace of sources and uses of expertise; procedures to

acknowledge minority views; involvement of stakeholders at early stage; and better

management of uncertainty .

With regard to options for establishing European scientific reference systems, there

was a consensus on the need to avoid bureaucratic and overly-centralised modes of

operation; to focus on networking (including virtual networking); to allow for review

and flexibility; and to develop such systems consistently within the overall

democratising approach.

Taking account of all this, a number of options aimed at democratising expertise andestablishing European reference systems were explored. Out of the large pool of


19/30

15

possible options, five action lines were identified as particularly promising within the

context of the White Paper on Governance.

These action lines concern an inventory network on expertise, guidelines on expert

advice, procedures to guarantee access and participation, extended peer review,

integrated procedures for risk governance. Strands of all the action lines are closelyinterlinked; for this reason they should be treated as related components of an overall

strategy. They evolve from existing mechanisms and should be regarded as acontribution to the experimental, open process of learning with which the

Commission is particularly engaged at the moment, for example, in the ReformProcess.

The proposed action lines should help to improve the input legitimacy of the process

through which expertise is developed, selected and used and, at the same time, theoutput legitimacy through the quality and effectiveness of policy decisions as well

as public debate.

More specifically, the main aims of the action lines include:

- access to, and transparency of, the process of the development, selection and useof expertise for policy making;

- accountability to citizens and representative institutions of those who provide and

use expertise for policy making;

- effectiveness in providing expertise - helping to deliver policy decisions thatmeet citizens needs and demands;

- early warning and foresight to help identify new issues and threats;

- independence and integrity (for example, experts should be required to make

and update prior declaration of interest);

- plurality of sources and types of expertise consulted for policy making and publicdebate, including acknowledgement of minority views;

- quality of expertise (including scientific excellence and policy and social

relevance.


20/30

The main action lines and their aims can be visualised in a matrix.

ACTION LINES

Access, participation, intermediary platforms

AIMS

A more

complete

understanding

of the expertise

currently used

at EU level.

Guidelines

for the

selection

and use of

expertise

for policy

making

Access toexpertise

provided and

used for policy

advice

Participatoryprocedures for

debate on risk

issues and their

regulation

Intermediaryplatforms to

facilitate

interaction

between experts,public, policy

makers

Broaden

and

integrati

the exper

used in

policy

makin

Access and

transparency* * * * *

Accountability

* * * *Effectiveness * * * * *Early warning

and foresight* * * *

Independence

and integrity*

Plurality * * * * *Quality * * * *


21/30

17

The action lines complement and reinforce each other. The Guidelines, depending on

the actual content, could meet all the aims and act as the catalyst for the other action

lines. The Inventory network can be regarded as a service to the other options by

mapping the jungle of sources of expertise. The action line on Access, Participation

and Intermediary Platforms focuses on different aspects of transparency.Procedures for Extended peer review aim to reconcile quality, access and

accountability (sometimes perceived as conflicting with each other). FinallyIntegrated Procedures of Risk Governance intend to ensure accountability and

effectiveness.

Initially the action lines could be implemented within the Commission. Many of thestrands of the action lines could be taken up within other EU institutions. They could

also be further exploited at national, regional or local level within the EU throughappropriate dialogue with Member States. This could be achieved, for example,

through the open method of co-ordination, taking account of national diversities and

circumstances. The report does not propose single solutions to be applied in a

uniform manner at all these levels. More work will be required for any

implementation within the Commission and will certainly be needed for extensions to

the other levels. The proposed action lines should be regarded as topics for the startof such a process.

An assessment of the resources (budget, personnel, etc.) needed to eventually

implement these action lines, and the comparative analysis between such costs and the

expected benefits, are beyond the mandate of this group. Such an assessment would

clearly be required before embarking on concrete implementation steps.

4.2 Action lines

(i) A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level.

An inventory, or inventory network, would improve access to and transparency

of these sources and their use, and would provide continuity over time and ensurethat institutional memory is maintained within the administration. This

mapping of expertise would simplify access to relevant information on whoknows what, and provides/d expert input to whom about what. It could be useful

not only for policy makers but also for the interested public and the media. For

example, it could provide a one-stop search engine to check about news

related to scientific and technological impacts, risks, etc. This could be especially

beneficial during crises when little time is available for searching for relevant

expertise, and rapidly taking stock of available expertise assumes greater

importance. This work could be undertaken as part of the establishment of

European scientific reference systems.

Some relevant work is already underway. The Secretariat General has compiled

an inventory of comitology Committees,10

and is compiling, for internal use, a

list of all other committees, including advisory committees. An inventory of

consultative bodies and civil society organisations is also being compiled.

10OJ 8.9.2000


22/30

18

The working groups suggestion builds on these ongoing efforts, and

complements similar proposals by other groups 11. It is suggested to extend these

to map all sources of expertise used by the Commission (e.g. consultants,

evaluators, etc.).

A second step could involve the establishment of a network (or a virtual network)of inventories of EU bodies providing expert input to EU policy-making. This

could embrace European agencies, the Scientific and Technological OptionsAssessment office (STOA) of the European Parliament, the Economic and Social

Committee. It could also include inventories established by the Commission forpurposes wider than its direct work, for example those set up by the Joint

Research Centre, and networks of excellence to be established with theEuropean Research Area and the Research Framework Programme 2002-2006.

At a third stage the inventory could link with national networks and relevantorganisations (e.g. large facilities network/CERCLE) and with international

structures (e.g. scientific/advisory bodies related to FAO, OECD, UNEP, WTO

and others).

The benefits of such inventories and networks would naturally need to be

weighed against the resources required for their continuous updating and review.

(ii) European Guidelines for the selection and use of expertise for policy-making

European guidelines would embody the aims and principles previously discussed.

They could act as a catalyst for other proposals within other EU institutions and

at the Member State level. Such guidelines would be applicable to theCommission (including its scientific and other Committees) but could also inspire

other European organisations (e.g. Council Working Groups, European Agencies)and form the basis of a dialogue with Member States to explore whether similar

or related guidelines could be used at national level.

Some governments (UK and Canada) have already issued guidelines on scientificadvice for policy-making. The UK Guidelines were first issues in 1997 by the

Office of Science and Technology and were revised in 2000; the CanadianGovernment issued guidelines in 2000 based on the report Science Advice for

Government Effectiveness published in 1999 by the Council on Science and

Technology Advisors. While both the UK and Canadian Guidelines focus on

scientific advice, they encompass a plurality of sources of expertise in their

coverage (e.g. the UK guidelines refer to expert sources from research, lay

members of advisory groups, consumers groups and other stakeholders bodies; the

Canadian guidelines refer to traditional knowledge).

Drafting the Guidelines: This should be the product of a co-ordinated effortby the Commissions services and, where appropriate, with early consultation

and involvement of other EU institutions, Member States and a variety ofproviders and users of expertise. Without prejudging the outcome of this

process, the working groups expects that the guidelines could includeprinciples aimed at ensuring early identification of issues requiring

mobilisation of expertise, enhancement of foresight capability, openness and

11Namely the WGs on Participatory rights and Evaluation.


23/30

19

transparency, accountability, independence and integrity, plurality as well

as quality in the way experts are selected and the expert advice is used.

Implementation and monitoring: Guidelines merely set principles; to ensure

that these are followed in practice, procedures also need to be established.These can include reporting obligations by the institutions concerned, and/or

independent monitoring by an external body/super partes. These functions

can include reporting to the Parliament (or even involve monitoring within theParliament) and publication of all such reports. In addition, guidelines can be

supported by, or complemented with, Codes of Conduct.

The working group considered that clear procedures need to be elaborated to

assess whether Guidelines are followed and to establish the consequences of

not implementing them. These could include periodical reports to, and

scrutiny by, other institutions, such as the European Parliament (which could

be assisted by STOA), Council, the European Ombudsman, etc. For example,

the Secretariat General or an external body could report to the monitoring

institution, and the report with monitoring conclusions could be published.

Codes of Conduct could support the implementation of the Guidelines (e.g. b y

providing for procedures to guarantee integrity of expert advice).

(iii) Ensuring access, improving participation and developing intermediary

platforms for more transparent and accountable policy making and informedpublic debate

A number of measures could be adopted to better connect experts, policy makers

and society at large. These measures would not only ensure transparency,communication and involvement of relevant actors, but also contribute to

confidence building and improved quality of policy-making and public debate.

Three distinct but related actions are suggested under this action line: access to

expertise, participatory procedures and intermediary platforms.

Access to expertise and evidence provided for policy advice: Makingexpertise accessible is a key feature of its democratisation, of overcoming

the frequent opaqueness of the process of providing advice and of tracking the

evidence produced and used. Access to expertise can be seen as an importantingredient and complement of freedom of information provisions12.

Such access can take two main forms: a) open meetings of Committees where

expert advice is elaborated and/or special public hearings organised by suchCommittees; b) publication of expert advice, and more broadly, of any

evidence used for policy formulation, evaluation, etc. With regard to both

forms, issues of time and of balance between access and time to think needto be taken into account.

With regard to access to meetings of experts advisory Committees, the

fundamental issue is whether all meetings should be open all the time (as

provided by the US Federal Advisory Committee Act) or only some meetings

or parts of meetings. It is imperative to ensure access but, at the same time, to

12 Such as the EC Directive on Public access to environmental information COM (2000) 402 final,

the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access

to justice in environmental matters or, in the US context, the Freedom of Information Act.


24/30

20

avoid provisions that could put off relevant sources of expertise or could lead

to the creation of other informal arenas to circumvent the rule. Therefore, the

working group favours generally open meetings with rules of access being

clearly specified (e.g. right to attend the whole meeting, but to take the floor

only at certain stages and under certain procedures) and with any exceptions

(closed meetings) to be duly motivated and justified. The reasons forrestricting access should be published. In addition, public hearings at the stage

of preparation of the advice could be organised to allow broader participationand debate.

As a general rule, the evidence used to shape policy decisions, and how it

was used, should be published. This includes synthesis documents (e.g. forMembers of Parliament) that provide a track record, explaining how

evidence was produced and used, including accounting for minority views andmaking explicit the uncertainties. Publication of documents could be through

the paper format, as well as on Internet, and provisions for transparency

(already adopted and under re-definition by the European institutions) should

apply to such expert-based documents.

Nevertheless, the desire to ensure that evidence is published must be balancedagainst possible drawbacks. For example, publishing evidence that is not yet

peer reviewed in any form can lead to more controversy than existing

practices. More confusion could be caused through unclear and quick

changes in evidence. Publication of rough, unprocessed data can lead to

problems in relation to intellectual property rights. It is important, although

far from easy, to define criteria for relevance and usability of documents tobe made public.

In addition to these important but passive publication provisions, a proactive

communication strategy should be implemented, aimed at informing citizenson what is accessible and how

13. Such a strategy should take into account the

diversity of target audiences (young people, interested citizens, socialpartners, etc.), and should address both the EU and accession countries. The

aim should be to provide a clear picture of the content of expert advice, andhow it is used. Rather than providing simplistic black and white message that

could prove inaccurate or wrong, the strategy should ensure that uncertainties

and controversies, where they exist, should be made explicit.

13On communication aspects see also the Working Group on Developing a European Public Space.


25/30

21

Participatory procedures for debate on risk issues and their regulation:

Actively involving citizens and stakeholders in decisions that concern allaspects of their lives is a key element of democracy. Participation goes

beyond mere access. Participatory mechanisms can enhance knowledge-sharing, scrutiny of experts and policy makers and overall effectiveness of,

and trust in, the decisions being made.

Citizens juries, consensus conferences, focus groups and public hearings have

been implemented on specific topics at local and national levels (for instance

in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, The Netherlands, UK).

Participatory foresight focusing on risks and opportunities offered by science

and technology in a timeframe from 5 to 15 years- has also become a major

effort in some national contexts (e.g. Ireland, Germany, Sweden, UK). Given

the diversity of Europe, there is no question of establishing a homogeneous

and centralised procedure for participation. The issue is rather to develop a

range of mechanisms having a European dimension while not being

Brussels focused. Three types of actions could be envisaged:

Exchange of information between Member States, accession countries,and other countries within and outside Europe, on the types and features ofparticipatory procedures implemented so far, outcomes of such procedures,

and topics addressed. This could provide a useful basis for comparing andlearning from good practices. It could also prove a useful capacity

building exercise for countries or communities that have not tried suchparticipatory procedures so far. Some research on this topic is ongoing and

some informal networks have been established. Taking stock of suchdevelopments and drawing lessons on what could be best suitable for

improving participation in European policy-making and with related use of

expertise would be fruitful.

Soft co-ordination of participatory mechanisms could involve

reciprocal information on what topics are addressed, when and how, as

well as joint meetings (either in same location or by virtual networking) on

the same topic. This could allow an exchange of views of participants

from different countries on the same topic of European relevance. When

feasible and appropriate, a mixed group of citizens from different

countries could gather in one location for example, hosted by the

European Parliament, a national parliament, a city council, a research

organisation, an NGO - and link with panels/groups/conferences in

different countries.

Formal procedures (eventually legal rules) could involve requirementsfor European institutions and/or for Member States, or other legal entities,

to organise participatory procedures to allow scrutiny of expertise and ofpolicy-making at the earliest stages of policy-making, (e.g. policy

formulation), and/or policy implementation. Some provisions o f this typeare already in place

14.

14 For example, EC Directive 97/11 on environmental impact assessments states that Member Statesshall ensure that any request for development consent and any information gathered () are made

available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity

to express an opinion before the development consent is granted.


26/30

22

Some financial resources could be earmarked by the Commission (and other

organisations) to assist such exchange of information and co-ordination and to

help less resourceful organisations (e.g. patient groups) to participate in all

three actions mentioned above.

Intermediary platforms to facilitate the interaction between experts,

public, policy makers and the media

The establishment of intermediary platforms at the European level should be

encouraged.

Some institutions or fora can facilitate interactions b etween experts, policy

makers and the public by translating scientific findings into policy issues and

options or news, or by translating policy and social issues into

researchable questions. They can also assist in overcoming distrust due to

lack of knowledge or understanding of the different arguments (including

between experts). In addition, they can enhance the examination of existing

issues and emerging/future issues that cross policy, disciplinary or national

boundaries by gathering together relevant actors from different domains.Some existing intermediary institutions can be identified (such as the DanishBoard of Technology, a pioneer of participatory technology assessment, or

the Rathenau Institute in the Netherlands) but intermediary platforms canalso consist of virtual platforms such as networks, workshops or journals

putting into communication different sources of expertise and their users.Encouraging mixed career paths namely mobility between academia and

administration, between public and private sectors, between national andEuropean or international organisations, could provide important support for

enhancing the interaction between experts, policy makers, media and civil

society organisations.

(iv) Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making

The goal is to ensure that relevant knowledge is mobilised to assess both

scientific quality of expert advice, as well as social and policy implications.

Knowledge used for policy-making and public debate should not only be

excellent from a scientific point of view; it also needs to be socially robust,

responding to policy, social, economic needs or concerns. This involves

expertise beyond both the traditional and professional peer community to

include those with practical or other knowledge about the issue at hand.

For example, gender impact assessments have indicated, that gender blindassessments may fail to identify that certain relevant aspects are neglected or

poorly addressed in research proposals or in expert advice provided for policy-making. Similarly, in environmental impact assessments, the links between

environmental, economic, social, legal and cultural aspects require reviewprocedures involving a plurality of experts from different disciplines and practical

knowledge.

This widening of expertise is also known as extended peer review. It can

reconcile the often opposing criteria of quality and participation: broadening the


27/30

23

participation in the review of knowledge developed and used for policy advice

could enhance quality.

Extended peer review is already being practised. For example, the offices for

technology assessment of some Parliaments (e.g. OPECCST in France, STOA in

the European Parliament) call on a plurality of experts, often including practicalknowledge, to address the specific questions by Members of Parliaments. Also,

extended reviews were introduced from 1995 for the evaluation of proposalssubmitted for financial support under EC research programmes

15. At the

international level, an interesting example of extended peer review is theCochrane Collaboration, an international organisation established in 1993 and

with centres in 15 countries. Cochrane aims to help people make well informeddecisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and ensuring the

accessibility of systematic reviews by researchers, health care professionals,consumers and others - of the effects of health care interventions.

Extended peer review processes could be used systematically where expertise is

involved in policy or decision-making processes.

In addition to mapping relevant knowledge: science based, as well as local,practical knowledge covered by action ( i), the working group considered two

areas of particular relevance for extended peer review:

The elaboration of criteria to identify relevant knowledge. These would

help determine which knowledge is relevant, for what purpose, and on whatbasis. The criteria should reflect the plurality of knowledge sources as well as

the issues and context where the knowledge is to be applied, (e.g. identifyingrisks, assessing options, monitoring and implementation, evaluating

performance, etc.).

Clearing houses to make broadly-based expertise available. These couldbe public databases organised by topic (rather than discipline), journals, etc.

The establishment of clearing house(s) could be part of the establishment of

European reference systems and individuals with mixed career background

(e.g. within the Commission as well as within research and other

organisations) could be instrumental in animating and updating such clearinghouses.

(v) Integrated procedures for risk governance

While most discussion focuses on the relationship between risk assessment and

risk management, risk analysis also encompasses risk identification, evaluation

and communication. Risk governance takes all these elements into account andinvolves all actors with clear, although not necessarily separated, articulation of

responsibilities. These range from those who provide risk assessment, those who

might be most exposed to the risks, those who decide on specific risk

management options, to those who implement such options. There are different

views as regards whether these two functions should be performed b y the same or

different organisations. This issue is beyond the mandate of this Working Group,

15 Scientific excellence is first assessed by peers in the relevant scientific disciplines, while the socio-

economic impacts and policy implications of proposals that pass the scientific screening are

subsequently assessed by involving a broader range of experts.


28/30

24

although whichever perspective is followed, there is wide agreement on the need

for an effective interface between the different components. The importance of

such an interface can be seen, for example, in the report for the European

Commission A European Food and Public Health Authority: the future of

scientific advice in the EU, published in December 1999.

The working group identified four ways to enhance the interface between the

different components and different actors of risk governance:

Methods and platforms for joint problem definition, taking into account

policy and social concerns. These could include open meetings or public

hearings of expert advisory bodies performing risk assessment to receive

inputs from a plurality of sources. These might involve potential or actual

victims having practical knowledge of risks, those having practical experience

as operators (from industrial engineers to medical staff), as well as policy-

makers at various levels (local to global, depending on the issue at hand) and

on management options to be decided, etc..

Interfaces between risk assessors and risk managers. These could be

provided by secretariats (for instance, by scientific secretariats within theadministration) that liaise with expert advisory bodies and ensure continued

dialogue at all stages, from the process of preparing questions to thetransmission of opinions. Such dialogue and regular exchange of information

should be pursued at all levels: between EU institutions, between EU and

Member States institutions and, where relevant, with international

organisations. Particular attention should be paid to the development of

common practices for the exchange of information between risk assessors and

risk managers at EU, national and international levels in case of crises. The

development of such practices and of suitable co-ordination procedures could

take stock from past experience of crisis management both within the

Community (e.g. radiological and food alert) and internationally (e.g.

international conventions such as IAEA Convention on Early Notification of

nuclear accidents and on Assistance in case of nuclear accidents). The focus

on early warning could be part of crisis prevention and be a component of

co-ordination efforts. An additional and informal interface could be provided

by small meetings with experts not directly involved in the process and actingas sounding board at the stages of preparation of questions, identification of

options, preparation of communication and consultation procedures.

Monitoring, evaluation and review mechanisms for risk governance.Monitoring can detect risks from invisible (e.g. radiation) and/or unknown

sources; secretive management of data can delay the detection of risks and

experience shows that monitoring needs to be accessible and transparent forproper risk identification. Evaluation ranges from risk/cost/benefit analysis to

the analysis of the social perception and acceptance of risks or the

administrative feasibility of different management options. Comprehensive

evaluation appears preferable when, as is often the case, distribution of risks,

costs, benefits etc. are unbalanced. Review mechanisms are needed to adapt

decisions taking account of progress in knowledge and changes in the socio-economic conditions.


29/30

25

A comprehensive communication strategy. This is essential during the

whole process, from identification of risks to the evaluation of policiesintended to manage them. This must embrace the relevant stakeholders, and

will foster an understanding at every stage, helping to engender public trustin the whole policy-making process. Specific actions could be envisaged to

improve the communication capacity of administrations, media and experts to

avoid patronising attitudes towards the citizens and engage in real dialogue.

Although the matter of risk governance is considered a priority, integrated

approaches are needed to ensure consistency across policy areas, as well as across

time and space. This is a matter examined, for example, in the Commission

Strategy on Sustainable Development that has been developed in parallel to the

White Paper on Governance.

CONCLUSION

The working group has made five recommendations that, in its collective view, will

contribute to the dual goal of better quality policy-making, and restored trust in the

use of expertise. These recommendations are in the form ofaction lines, representingpromising avenues for further exploration.

In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission

and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with otherEU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not

only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should alsohelp identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked

actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination).

Further development and implementation of these action lines will be done in the

context of the follow-up to the White Paper, and, as far as the European Research

Area is concerned, as part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following

the Commission services working document Science, Society and Citizens in

Europe.


30/30

Annex

Members of the Working Group

Mona Bjorklund DG ENTR

Grete Bossenmeyer DG ENV

Colette Cotter DG ENTR

Alan Cross DG RTDCatherine Fallon DG EMPL

Francesco Franca SJSilvio Funtowicz JRC

Rainer Gerold DG RTD PilotRoderick Hurst DG RTD

Ludwig Kraemer DG ENVNotis Lebessis SG

Angela Liberatore DG RTD RapporteurRobin Mige JRC

Lars Mitek Pedersen SG

Michael Rogers SG

Michael Shotter SJ

Peter Wagstaffe DG SANCO

The challenge, and opportunity for the group was to implement good governance in

its working methods, with emphasis placed on frank exchanges of views and

experiences, and open, instructive cooperation.

white paper democritising expertise 2001

Documents